IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v3y2014i3p565-583d40309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Dreaming of Child Safe Organisations?

Author

Listed:
  • William Budiselik

    (School of Occupational Therapy and Social Work, Curtin University, Western Australia 6102, Australia)

  • Frances Crawford

    (School of Health, University of New England, New South Wales 2351, Australia)

  • Donna Chung

    (School of Occupational Therapy and Social Work, Curtin University, Western Australia 6102, Australia)

Abstract

On 12 November 2012 the then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced she was recommending to the Governor General the establishment of a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Following inquiries in Australia and elsewhere much is already known about institutional and inter-institutional child protection failures and what is required to address them. That Australia’s national government has pursued another abuse inquiry with terms of reference limited to institution-based (excluding the family) sexual abuse is of interest given the lack of political will to enact previous findings and recommendations. This article examines the background to the Government’s announcement, the Commission’s terms of reference and some of its settings, and literature on the nature of royal commissions across time and place. After the lack of success in implementing the recommendations of previous inquiries into how to better protect Australia’s children, the question is: how will this Royal Commission contribute to Australian child protection and safety? Will the overwhelming public support generated by “truth speaking to power” in calling for this inquiry translate into action?

Suggested Citation

  • William Budiselik & Frances Crawford & Donna Chung, 2014. "The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Dreaming of Child Safe Organisations?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:565-583:d:40309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/3/565/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/3/565/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:565-583:d:40309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.